skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The outrage at Columbia University's speaking invitation to Iran's President Ahmedinejad is fully understandable (see here, here and here).
There may be strong grounds for denying the Iranian leader a platform to spew his vile hatred of the West. Yet, Ahmadinejad - for all his derangement - is a major international player, and the world community has an interest in hearing what he has to say, especially at the United Nations, and even at Columbia (whose administration just doesn't get it).
Folks should not lose sight of the big picture, though. The Oxford Medievalist reminds us of the nature of the Iranian challenge:
Mahmoud is an apocalyptic madman Jew-hating president of a regime bent on spreading its Islamist revolution throughout the Middle East and, eventually, the world.
I'm reminded of Iran's revolutionary aspirations by today's Los Angeles Times, which reports on this weekend's military parade in Tehran, a show of force coinciding with Ahmadinejad's visit to New York:
Iran showed off its armaments Saturday at annual army celebrations meant to highlight the oil-rich nation's military self-sufficiency and prowess in the face of international sanctions and U.S. hostility.
Iranian-made Saegheh fighter jets, which some military experts say are based on U.S. F-18s, screeched across the sky over Iranian-made armored personnel carriers and Ghadr missiles, which have a range of more than 1,000 miles.
"All these arms and equipment have been manufactured in Iran by Iranian experts," an announcer declared on state-controlled television.
Military commanders and political officials assembled for the military parade near the tomb of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said they were undeterred by the possibility of U.S. or Israeli military attacks or increased economic pressure on Iran. The Islamic Republic is at odds with the West over its ambitions to acquire advanced nuclear technology and its alleged support for armed Islamic groups.
"Those who believe that through rotten means, such as psychological warfare and economic sanctions, they could hinder progress of the Iranian nation are wrong," said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is scheduled to arrive in New York today and to address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday.
Iran and the U.S. are engaged in a struggle over influence in the Middle East. Tehran accuses Washington of destabilizing the region by backing Israel and occupying Iraq. The U.S. accuses the Islamic Republic of pursuing nuclear weapons and supporting anti-American militants in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
The Times piece notes that American officials have not ruled out military action to eliminate Iran's threat to regional and global security, and in that lies the significance of the Ahmadinejad visit.
Allowing the Iranian leader to denounce the U.S., Israel, and the West will likely bolster the case against Iran's peaceful intentions. One of the best lessons emerging out of the recent MoveOn scandal is that free speech has the powerful value of exposing despicable views to popular repudiation. In the case of Iran, the sanctions regime against Iranian nuclear development has proved ineffectual. While the U.S. delays a decisive showdown, Iran continues its bid for regional domination, and its ultimate campaign for the destruction of Israel.
Let America and the world hear what Ahmadinejad has to say this week in New York. All the while, no one should take their eyes off the big picture - a military showdown is coming, and we have a compelling interest in hearing the continued dissemination of Ahmadinejad's propaganda and warmongering. His rants will bolster the already compelling case for a preventive war to remove the Iranian threat.
Cross-posted from The Oxford Medievalist:
ABC News is reporting that General David Petraeus, in his highly-anticipated September report to Congress on the status of the surge, will recommend a drawdown of troops by March, if not sooner. There's not much news in this - the surge was always meant to be a temporary operation, hence calling it the "surge." And besides, a lack of additional troops means there's really no way to increase or sustain the effort far beyond spring 2008. What is newsworthy, though, is that the other reason why Petraeus will call for troop reductions is that the surge is working, and violence in Iraq is down to 2006 lows, a point ABC does, in fact, report. The drawdown will probably be to "pre-surge" levels (around 130,000 troops), which still won't satiate the anti-war activists who want a complete withdrawal. But by recommending troop reductions by next spring, with some modest reductions to possibly begin in December, it will buy some political breathing room in the U.S. Congress (ironic, because that's what the surge is meant to do in Iraq.) Granted, it's not what Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wanted when they started the process of attempting to legislate defeat. But, faced with increasing news that the surge is accomplishing results, including the General's own report, they'll be forced to accept Petraeus' recommendations that troop reductions begin...when they were to begin all along. In short, despite the hopes of the nutroots, their Democratic majority will be powerless to end the surge - Petraeus and the Iraqis will get the time they needs to continue making progress in Iraq.
Cross-posted from The Oxford Medievalist.
Cross-posted from The Oxford Medievalist:
It is fitting that an anti-war propagandist would first showcase his latest portrayal of U.S. soldiers as heinous savages to a foreign audience:
A new film about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family stunned the Venice festival, with shocking images that left some viewers in tears.
"Redacted", by U.S. director Brian De Palma, is one of at least eight American films on the war in Iraq due for release in the next few months and the first of two movies on the conflict screening in Venice's main competition.
Inspired by one of the most serious crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, it is a harrowing indictment of the conflict and spares the audience no brutality to get its message across.
I said not too long ago that TNR's Scott Thomas Beauchamp debacle signified the opening salvo of the anti-war left's strategy to discredit the Iraq war by attacking our troops. De Palma's effort is simply a continuation of that theme: attack the war by attacking the military. Clearly, the rape, torture and murder of an Iraqi family by U.S. soldiers is a horrible, horrible thing - words can hardly describe my disgust. But De Palma, using this terrible incident (his own fictionalized account, no less), tries to make it representative of our military, in order to indict American involvement in Iraq. Make no mistake: this isn't about illuminating a tragedy in order to hold our soldiers to a higher standard. People like De Palma could care less whether our soldiers perform admirably or horribly; with bravery and valor, or with malice and hate. And it's certainly not about illustrating the plight of the Iraqi people. If it were, we'd have seen a movie highlighting the cutting off of faces with piano wire, the cooking of children, and the strapping of a suicide vest to a handicapped boy, among the many other atrocities that have been perpetrated by al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents - atrocities that will only be committed on a larger scale should De Palma's propaganda succeed. Oh, BTW, De Palma does, apparently, include footage of al Qaeda beheadings, but disgracefully implies the U.S. is to blame for them.
Really - ask yourself, is it about ignorance, or arrogance? Is the vanguard of the anti-war left really ignorant about the Iraq War, or are they simply arrogant, agenda-driven propagandists? What De Palma really cares about is ending the war, a war, any and every war. Because for him and the rest of the irrational anti-war left, military force is never justified, but it's especially egregious when it's an American war. All you need to know about De Palma, his film, and the anti-war left comes from De Palma's own mouth:
"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening.
"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.
De Palma's goal is to end the war, despite the atrocities that will occur at this point after a U.S. withdrawal. How can he say in the same breath that he cares about the plight of the Iraqi people and that he wants to motivate an end to the war because of this plight? Understand that the plight of the Iraqis is just a convenient vehicle with which to push his anti-war agenda. That U.S. soldiers tragically committed a rape and murder just make De Palma and the anti-war crowd lick their chops. As De Palma himself said, "I knew I had a story."
De Palma's an old hand at this sort of propaganda: he made the 1989 film Casualties of War, which also sought to portray American soldiers as bloodthirsty rapists. Cross-posted from The Oxford Medievalist.
